Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs!

Yes, I agree and even listed others, but not one of those has a lick to do with resolution, the most often sited "advantage" to crop cameras.

Logged

Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400. Do these people who spout off statements like that think that even Canon, having their own chip fabs, can conjure up a sensor, firmware, amplifiers, or even a new battery and get it all into a usable, rugged, reasonably bug-free camera body (keeping in mind tolerances are on the order of microns for pro camera bodies) in a matter of weeks? No, the prototyping for a product of that scale takes months, and getting anything even remotely ready for delivery can take a year or two. It's not even a matter of throwing more money and engineers at the problem (at a certain point adding more engineers makes the project unmanageable - a lot of the design for each component is the result of linear thinking).

I don't think they're going to base sensor design on what Nikon does with the D400. If they do that, they are ceding the market to Nikon for the next two years. They might play with announcement and delivery timing (I'd suspect Canon to announce after Nikon and deliver before Nikon since Nikon preannounces way too far in advance) but that's about all the impact Nikon would have on the 7D mk II - if there will be a mk II (I hope there will be).

I see people comment like this all the time: "Canon is holding back the nD waiting to see what Nikon does" or "Nikon is holding the Dn back to see what Canon does first." No, the reality is R&D takes time, and they're each sufficiently successful and have such a strong revenue pipeline that they do. not. have. to. rush. and instead bake the product until it is actually done.

They can crank out rebel after rebel after rebel because for key components they're just drawing from their existing parts bin and forking software projects, with minor tweaks so development and QA efforts are minimal, and offer a huge return for minimal investment. For the XD line (and the XXD) it's a different matter, since those models usually get the sensors, software, and other bleeding-edge components first. That's also why the xD and xxD models cost so much initially - the first unit to roll off the assembly line cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to product - the second about half as much, and so on until R&D is fully amortized, enabling Canon (and Nikon) to lower the price, as the sales morph from recovering losses to earning profits. See: amortization.

It's one thing to add a gimmicky articulated screen to a low-end camera body using screens from your parts bin and make a new plastic mold, and tweak sensor designs you borrowed from pro and semi-pro cameras and get the product out in a month or three, and quite another to develop a whole new hardware and software architecture (as well as a fab process, metal casting molds and precision machining tooling with a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product) from the ground up.

If there is ANY truth to Canon basing the product on Nikon's announcement, it would likely be choosing between a selection of workable prototypes that are similar enough that the tooling for parts is already in place for each, or could accommodate minor variances with minimal effort. They're certainly not going to get a whole new chip fab process designed, tested and scaled up for production that quickly.

Perhaps an update for the video facilities? A PJ would find working video AF valueable, and fullHD@60fps or 4K wouldn't hurt any user group either. Hard to imagine a meaningful update in the low resolution still frame sector. As for 4K - the 70D-sensor now has just enough cells to get a 4K 4:4:4 stream, would be a unique point of sale atm.

Timing could also depend on what Nikon is going to be doing with the D400.

I don't believe a word from anyone who says that Canon is waiting for Nikon to see what they do with the D400...

Yes, R&D takes time, but the historical fact is that both Nikon and Canon tend to announce major products in tandem. Canon usually follows Nikon by anywhere from a few weeks to a few months. That is not a coincidence. They are competitors and one is not going to allow the other to release a new product that goes unchallenged.

These companies have been competing for nearly a century. They know each other very well and you can be sure each has a pretty good idea of what the other is capable of and likely to produce with each cycle. Besides, the universe of options is really pretty limited: resolution, maximum ISO, frame rate, dynamic range, video features, bells and whistles.

Canon isn't going to completely redesign the 7DII sensor in a matter of weeks based on what Nikon does, but they certainly could adjust other features once they know what their major competitor is doing.

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

Yes, I believe there is! Cost, FPS, preference! I like a camera with a good FPS as I like shooting fast moving subjects. If I were to demand full frame only, then that leaves me very limited to the expensive end of the Canon range, which, for a poor NHS worker like me, is entirely unattainable without selling organs!

Yes, I agree and even listed others, but not one of those has a lick to do with resolution, the most often sited "advantage" to crop cameras.

Sorry, I think I got the wrong end of the stick! It's the problem of being at the end of a 12 hour shift! I entirely agree with your points too

canon rumors FORUM

Whatever 7D Mark II comes out, I would like to be a back-up and good foil to my Full-Frame, presently the 5D Mark III.

For me - that would be the APS-C 1.6x factor to lengthen my lenses; higher frame rate for those situations; and decent video when I want to run both at a shoot - one video, one still. APS-H doesnt do it for me; neither does an average fps or video mode. I got the full frame so MP is not as important, especially if I switch up to the high MP 5DM4/3D in 2014 for my primary.

As to Nikon announcements, they may have a few different designs in development. I suppose they could wait for Nikon as they normally do and then use that as a factor in final design determination. But yep, whatever they have is probably already in field test somewhere.

As for timing - when does one unload a 7D Mark I ? Obviously the 70D in September will impact the resale market. An announcement would have similar impact. But I need a backup body; I cannot sell my current 7D Mark I too early.

They can crank out rebel after rebel after rebel because for key components they're just drawing from their existing parts bin and forking software projects, with minor tweaks so development and QA efforts are minimal, and offer a huge return for minimal investment. For the XD line (and the XXD) it's a different matter, since those models usually get the sensors, software, and other bleeding-edge components first. That's also why the xD and xxD models cost so much initially - the first unit to roll off the assembly line cost tens to hundreds of millions of dollars to product - the second about half as much, and so on until R&D is fully amortized, enabling Canon (and Nikon) to lower the price, as the sales morph from recovering losses to earning profits. See: amortization.

You're either oversimplyfing or you dont know what you're talking about; First off there aren't really any "bleeding edge components" in XD or XXD lines, at least not "edgier" than a touch screen or that 70d sensor etc, yes usually tech trickles down the line but given the yearly cycle of XXXD series its bound to introduce "edgy" stuff on its own.

It's one thing to add a gimmicky articulated screen to a low-end camera body using screens from your parts bin and make a new plastic mold, and tweak sensor designs you borrowed from pro and semi-pro cameras and get the product out in a month or three, and quite another to develop a whole new hardware and software architecture (as well as a fab process, metal casting molds and precision machining tooling with a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product) from the ground up.

I dont really know where to start with this one.., it contains some truth in that yes developing a whole new hardware and software architecture is more time consuming than incorporating an articulated screen but then again it never happens to develop a new hardware and software architecture for a product such as XD; there also tech tricles down from the FF models, and what new there is isnt enough to warrant the "whole new" title. Plus last i remember IM tooling is about the same as mag tooling plus its actually absurd claiming a tolerance of a few microns for a mass-produced product, where on earth you saw something on a dslr chassis requiring more than die casting tolerances for mag alloy?

Most photographers I know don't put much stock into the number of megapixels, often citing printing size as the sole benefit.

Is this true? Is there really nothing else to megapixels other than printing size?

The ability to crop is (or can be) a biggie. When I am shooting fast moving sports I often give myself a little extra margin in camera knowing that I can crop it later.

Indeed! And with wildlife, small birds, particularly, cropping gets the shot if you don't have a long enough lens.

This is often said, but rarely backup with proof, mainly because it isn't actually true.

Here is a same generation crop sensor at 100% and a cropped ff sensor upscaled to the same pixel number. Whilst there is a fraction more detail in the 7D image this was a bench test under ideal conditions; using AF, hand holding, higher iso etc, would all level the field. The 7D crop has over twice the pixels the 1Ds MkIII crop has!

Is there a good reason to own a crop camera? Sure, it might have better AF, it is easier to frame as the subject is magnified more in the viewfinder, the image you see is closer to the image you will get etc etc, but there is a mere fraction of difference in actual image resolution and even that small difference isn't realisable in real world shooting.

This argument is flawed on two fronts. First, the same things you claim detract from any benefit the 7D has also apply to the 1D IV. Camera shake, for example can diminish IQ well below the potential for either camera.

Second, and more important...final image resolution is the result a blend of each factor that detracts from initial resolution. Since final image resolution is a convolution of camera shake, AF missfocus, lens aberrations and diffraction AND sensor resolution...the 7D would still come out on top even WITH all of those things affecting IQ. Assuming the same amount of camera shake, AF missfocus, and lens resolution...the only difference between the two then is sensor resolution...and the 7D wins.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the 7D2 will have a 16-18 MP sensor. To be honest, I would even prefer a 16 MP 7D2 over a higher res one if this means better high ISO IQ, not to mention speed. After all, the 1Dx and the Nikon D4 are 18 and 16 MP, respectively, and none of their owners complain about this despite being both FF cameras, since both are geared for speed and highest IQ and those are the reasons for purchasing them, apart from build quality.

My thoughts exactly!

The 7D series is positioned as a sports body. So no 24mp sensor on the 7DII, that's for sure.

Lowering the resolution to 16mp might be too bold and controversial, so Canon might stick to 18mp after all.

Overall, though, Canon will most likely work to make the 7DII ISO better - and that, of course, rules out resolution increases. For more resolution (plus good ISO), Canon offers FF cameras.